• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana's Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

US Conservative said:
https://acluidaho.org/our-work/in-the-courts/
Click to expand...

Your link does nothing to support your claim. Try again. Try a little harder next time.

On a side note: I worked at the ACLU of Utah while I was in law school back in 1988-91. While I was there we were involved in a number of battles. Some involved over-crowded prison conditions, others involved civil rights issues...but one particular involved the right of an after-school student bible study group to have access to the school. We at the ACLU fought it and won. People often love to bitch and whine about the ACLU and often don't have a clue about many of the cases the ACLU has fought.
 
Blemonds said:
I see. If it's discrimination that supports one person's agenda, it's good, but when it goes against that person's agenda, it's bad. You gotta love that logic
Click to expand...

The logic is: Being intolerant of intolerance is the ultimate act of tolerance.
 
US Conservative said:
Some people just hung up or said no. He could easily make another video to jump through your hoops and a similar outcome would be found.

Perhaps there's an atheist out there trolling gay bakeries right now saying he wants a wedding cake that says gay marriage is wrong. He didn't choose to be straight, so it will no doubt be a travesty of justice that you will line up behind-you know, to be consistent.
Click to expand...

And they are free to do that, especially since he really didn't give them any information about what his religion, race, sex, sexuality (there are gay people who oppose same sex marriage), nationality, or other protected classification would be. He could assume that they assumed one of these things, but then he would still have to have some sort of evidence. The most he would have is "well I told them I wanted this cake with these words on it, then they hung up". I'm sure any court case would be easily thrown out after viewing that tape and seeing that the man was setting them up and that he wasn't even being denied service for a protected class. "Douchebag" isn't a protected classification.
 
disneydude said:
Oh puh-lease....at least get your facts straight. In the Colorado bakery case, the men had been long-time customers of the store. They didn't seek the store out as a target to sue. They assumed that as long-time customers they would be treated with the same respect that the baker gave to all their customers. They were shocked when the bigot refused to make the cake for them. They weren't asking for anything offensive to be placed on the cake....just the same cake that they offered to the public.

In essence...the baker was akin to the white restaurant owner: You can have the soup and sit in the back...but you can't order the things off the menu that I only serve to whites.
Click to expand...
Interesting. that means the discrimination was not based on the sexual reference but rather the event. Thanks for pointing that out
 
Blemonds said:
I see. If it's discrimination that supports one person's agenda, it's good, but when it goes against that person's agenda, it's bad. You gotta love that logic
Click to expand...

That appears to be the argument.
Here in California several years ago after prop 8 was passed (prohibiting gay marriage-turns out ethnic minorities weren't for it) there were cases of gays actually targeting minorities for violence. It got almost no media coverage, and was quickly forgotten. I didn't forget.
 
roguenuke said:
And they are free to do that, especially since he really didn't give them any information about what his religion, race, sex, sexuality (there are gay people who oppose same sex marriage), nationality, or other protected classification would be. He could assume that they assumed one of these things, but then he would still have to have some sort of evidence. The most he would have is "well I told them I wanted this cake with these words on it, then they hung up". I'm sure any court case would be easily thrown out after viewing that tape and seeing that the man was setting them up and that he wasn't even being denied service for a protected class. "Douchebag" isn't a protected classification.
Click to expand...

He was out to make a point and I think he made it well enough. Oh and just so you know, I think people that sue for being denied service are douchebags. Just sayin.
 
US Conservative said:
If I say unsafe sex or drunk driving is wrong, am I being hateful? What you are saying is that you dont want to be offended, and that if theres any chance it can be offensive it should be labeled as hateful. Sorry, Ive seen plenty of lefty protests that had the specific intent of being offensive.

Im not religious, but there are now day spa's that provide abortions-and I find that abhorrent. Since thats the case, you clearly must be against it.
Click to expand...

You are not calling anyone out. But someone could still choose to refuse to write either or both of those words on a cake for you if they don't want to do it. So long as they would refuse to write those things on a cake for any other customer.
 
vesper said:
And you can't use your bigoted views against religion to violate another man's rights over another. Either we all have rights or we have none.
Click to expand...

What are my bigoted views about religion? I believe strongly that everyone should have the right to practice any religion that they choose to...however you cannot use your religion as a shield to get around the laws of the country. Sorry...but claiming "religion" does not give you carte blanche to write your own rules. It doesn't work that way.
 
Blemonds said:
Interesting. that means the discrimination was not based on the sexual reference but rather the event. Thanks for pointing that out
Click to expand...

Wrong. He made cakes for weddings. They were having a wedding. He refused to sell them a cake for their wedding because of their being homosexual, their being a same sex couple. That makes it their classifications that was the reason for the refusal, not the event.
 
roguenuke said:
LOL!!

Please prove this ridiculous assertion. No one cares if Christians own businesses. What people do care about is if anyone, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Hindu, atheist, whoever tries to justify discrimination in their open-to-the-public business with "my beliefs are that this type of person is wrong, sinning, etc.".
Click to expand...
See the cases of the baker and photographer forced out of business. What is the eventual outcome of a Christian merchant who stands on his beliefs and refuses over and over to provide products or services for homosexual weddings?
 
disneydude said:
Your link does nothing to support your claim. Try again. Try a little harder next time.

On a side note: I worked at the ACLU of Utah while I was in law school back in 1988-91. While I was there we were involved in a number of battles. Some involved over-crowded prison conditions, others involved civil rights issues...but one particular involved the right of an after-school student bible study group to have access to the school. We at the ACLU fought it and won. People often love to bitch and whine about the ACLU and often don't have a clue about many of the cases the ACLU has fought.
Click to expand...

Then you know how the ACLU shops for cases, so stop pretending otherwise. They look for cases that will get through appeals making the strongest case, in order to have the biggest impact. DC vs Heller happened in DC for a reason. The Fluck case (at a Catholic university) was picked for a reason.

This is nothing new, goes back to at least the civil rights era, and the Rosa Parks case.

No need to pretend otherwise.
 
Blemonds said:
Interesting. that means the discrimination was not based on the sexual reference but rather the event. Thanks for pointing that out
Click to expand...

Like I said....it is similar to saying that blacks can watch the movie...but they gotta sit in the balacony. The theater owner isn't refusing them service....right?

"You can eat in my restaurant, but you have to sit out back on the porch and you can only order the soup...the rest of the menu is for whites-only".
 
roguenuke said:
Wrong. He made cakes for weddings. They were having a wedding. He refused to sell them a cake for their wedding because of their being homosexual, their being a same sex couple. That makes it their classifications that was the reason for the refusal, not the event.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but they were long time customers which means their sexual preferences were not an issue. It was the event that was an issue
 
roguenuke said:
And they are free to do that, especially since he really didn't give them any information about what his religion, race, sex, sexuality (there are gay people who oppose same sex marriage), nationality, or other protected classification would be. He could assume that they assumed one of these things, but then he would still have to have some sort of evidence. The most he would have is "well I told them I wanted this cake with these words on it, then they hung up". I'm sure any court case would be easily thrown out after viewing that tape and seeing that the man was setting them up and that he wasn't even being denied service for a protected class. "Douchebag" isn't a protected classification.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the best case would be a gay atheist who is anti-gay marriage, trolling those bakeries. He could easily record himself saying hes a gay atheist and he wants an anti-gay marriage cake for a wedding. See how easy this is?

And no-douche-bag isn't a protected classification-and I have a problem with protected classes in general (outside of medical conditions and children).

My problem here is not with gay marriage-I actually support that-my problem is with a stunning double standard, use of the govt to coerce non-protected class private businesses and citizens, and the invasive nature of the left in what should be a personal transaction between private citizens.
 
Wiggen said:
It's hard to believe, but these Neanderthals actually believe that. No right is more sacred to them than property rights.
Click to expand...

They are dying out, and the evangelical base is getting smaller and smaller due to natural attrition. Only the irrational haters are left, and they are being drowned out more and more every day.
 
disneydude said:
Like I said....it is similar to saying that blacks can watch the movie...but they gotta sit in the balacony. The theater owner isn't refusing them service....right?

"You can eat in my restaurant, but you have to sit out back on the porch and you can only order the soup...the rest of the menu is for whites-only".
Click to expand...
No, it would be more like selling a hunting knife to a black person one week but refusing to sell him one another week if he said he was going to use it to kill someone
 
Paperview said:
The logic is: Being intolerant of intolerance is the ultimate act of tolerance.
Click to expand...

Which is one of the shortcomings of the left-they believe they alone are the arbiters of tolerance, and since they are such strong defenders, nothing they do is wrong because the ends justify the means.
 
Blemonds said:
I see. If it's discrimination that supports one person's agenda, it's good, but when it goes against that person's agenda, it's bad. You gotta love that logic
Click to expand...

Nope. Generally, discrimination is justified if you can show a rational basis for it. "I don't sell beer or cigarettes to minors" is discrimination, but the reasoning is based on sound information that such things are worse for minors than for adults, can be much more harmful to them. "I refuse to allow anyone without a shirt to enter my store" is discrimination against those who don't want to or simply aren't wearing a shirt. It is justified though for several reasons. Someone might try to steal a shirt if the store sells them, pretending he was wearing one all the time. Or they might get sick due to the temperature inside the building and try to sue the owner for making them sick because they refused to wear a shirt. The owner could view it as a sanitation issue, since it is possible that a woman especially might be lactating (technically it is possible for a man to lactate as well, under certain circumstances). Being shirtless could allow for the lactation to drip on the floor and cause a slip hazard or simply end up somewhere in the store where someone else "touch" it by accident, spreading germs (milk, even breast milk, does not do well outside the body). "I do not sell pork products" is discrimination. Justified in that pretty much every business can decide what products they sell, just not that they won't sell them to certain types of people protected by laws.
 
US Conservative said:
Which is one of the shortcomings of the left-they believe they alone are the arbiters of tolerance, and since they are such strong defenders, nothing they do is wrong because the ends justify the means.
Click to expand...
That's the fact. Tolerance, like right and wrong, is relative
 
disneydude said:
What are my bigoted views about religion? I believe strongly that everyone should have the right to practice any religion that they choose to...however you cannot use your religion as a shield to get around the laws of the country. Sorry...but claiming "religion" does not give you carte blanche to write your own rules. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
And this bill doesn't do anything like that. But it does help to protect already given freedoms in the First Amendment. Folks can still sue them if they think they are being discriminated against but it will level the field so one's rights doesn't trump another. At least that is the way I read it.
 
roguenuke said:
You are not calling anyone out. But someone could still choose to refuse to write either or both of those words on a cake for you if they don't want to do it. So long as they would refuse to write those things on a cake for any other customer.
Click to expand...

I got another lefty dream case for you-physician who refuses to write a script for abortifacients to straight people but will to gay couples.

How would you guys handle that one?
 
Paperview said:
You think on that for a little bit, K?
Click to expand...
Nothing to think about. When one is intolerant of intolerance, the objection is to someone who holds a different perspective. That's not only intolerance, it's bigotry.
 
Blemonds said:
No, it would be more like selling a hunting knife to a black person one week but refusing to sell him one another week if he said he was going to use it to kill someone
Click to expand...

Not at all. It is a crime to kill someone, and in fact, a person who knows that another is going to use a product to "kill" someone is absolutely justified in not only not selling them that product, but also calling the cops.

Getting married to someone of the same sex is not illegal. It isn't even illegal in those places that don't allow same sex couples to marry yet. Having or even eating a cake at a wedding for a same sex couple is not illegal either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom